Arroyo v. United States
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari granted, judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States on June 30, 2015.
Issue: (1) Whether this Court should resolve a circuit split concerning whether the mere touching (simple battery) of a law enforcement officer is a violent felony under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); (2) whether the offense of discharging a firearm from a vehicle, which does not require knowledge of another person’s presence, is a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii); and (3) whether Almendarez-Torres v. United States should be overruled.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
|---|
| Jul 8 2014 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 14, 2014) |
| Aug 7 2014 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 15, 2014. |
| Sep 12 2014 | Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. |
| Sep 25 2014 | Reply of petitioner Daniel Arroyo filed. |
| Oct 2 2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014. |
| Oct 27 2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 31, 2014. |
| Jun 25 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015. |
| Jun 30 2015 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). Justice Alito concurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case. Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ____ (2015). In holding these petitions and now in vacating and remanding the decisions below in these cases, the Court has not differentiated between cases in which the petitioners would be entitled to relief if the Court held (as it now has) that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is void for vagueness and cases in which relief would not be warranted for a procedural reason. On remand, the Court of Appeals should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief. |
| Aug 3 2015 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
